Memory of Uncooperative Witnesses

Introduction Despite the importance of their testimony, witnesses rarely provide sufficient information (Kebbell & Milne, 1998). However, witnesses’ reports are not necessarily a representation of memory. In fact, lack of reporting does not equal to lack of memory. But, there is no empirical evidence on whether memory is protected if it is not reported. This will be the first study to examine whether level of cooperation during an investigative interview affects memory for the target event. Specifically, we aim to learn whether memory traces are conserved when witnesses are uncooperative. Method During an in-person session, all participants will watch a mock-crime video clip and serve as eyewitnesses. They will be randomly assigned to only one of four interviewing conditions: control, enhanced cooperation style and two uncooperative style groups. Participants in the uncooperative groups will be told that the police believe they also participated in the crime. It is expected that participants to avoid self-incrimination will be less cooperative than those who are independent witnesses. Further, those in the enhanced cooperative condition will receive an extra incentive to facilitate disclosure. After a week, only one of the uncooperative groups will be debriefed. All groups will be interviewed again. Memory performance will be measured in both interviews. Results A literature review regarding memory for the unsaid (i.e., what is remembered and not disclosed) shows mixed results. Lack of disclosure of information can be accompanied, or not, by remembering. Thus, not reporting may lead to forgetting, but also to memory facilitation (Stone, Coman, Brown, Koppel & Hirst, 2012). As this is an exploratory study, no directional hypotheses are formulated. Preliminary data will be presented during the conference. Discussion Learning about how interview cooperation style affects memory and how this can be best recalled at a later stage is of particular relevance

Uncooperative Witnesses and their Inclination to Disclose Information

Objectives Police rely on witness testimony to advance criminal investigations; however, witnesses do not always cooperate. Despite the importance of witness cooperation for gathering information during investigative interviews, it has received little scrutiny. We examined the extent to which witness cooperation affects information disclosure, and how lack of cooperation affects the reliability of witness testimony. Method Participants (N=139) watched a mock-crime video and were interviewed twice over a two-week period. They were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: control, cooperative and two uncooperative groups. Participants in the uncooperative groups were told the police believed they participated in the crime, but before the second interview one of the uncooperative groups was informed they were not longer incriminated. In the cooperative group, participants were informed they were key witnesses, whereas those in the control condition did not receive especial instructions. The amount of information disclosed was measured in both interviews. Results Data is currently being analysed and will be presented at the conference. We predict that witness cooperation level will affect information disclosure during investigative interviews. Specifically, uncooperative interviewees will disclose less detailed information, and will omit crime relevant facts, compared to those in the cooperative and control conditions. Additionally, we will examine whether memory for initially unreported information is impaired by an initial uncooperative interview Conclusion Understanding how witness cooperation affects information gathering during investigative interviews is relevant to examine the reliability of testimonies from uncooperative witnesses, and to inform interviewing practice that promotes cooperative reporting and facilitates disclosure

The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool

There is a myth in popular psychology, often echoed in police literature, but as yet untested, that specific eye movements pertain to lying and truth telling. According to this line of thought, eye movements to the sender’s right indicate lying, as the sender’s eyes are drawn to the side of his/her brain where their fabrication is being created. We have put this hypothesis, derived from ‘Neuro-Linguistic Programming’ to the test in two experiments. In Experiment 1, a total of 204 participants (all air passengers) were interviewed at an international airport about their forthcoming trip. All participants answered one question truthfully and one question deceptively. Some participants answered a third question truthfully, whereas others answered the same question deceptively. No conclusive evidence was found for a relationship between specific eye movements and deception. In Experiment 2, a total of 31 participants discussed their real occupation in one interview and a pretend occupation in another interview. Only three of the 31 participants revealed the eye movement pattern predicted by NLP. Reasons for the existence of the myth that liars display specific eye movements are discussed